Shadow Hog posted:

Really, that entire scene.

The make-up scene as well. Apparently not all of the takes had Ginnifer Goodwin breaking into tears during it, but using a take in which she did is partly why that scene works as well as it does.

Pixeltendo posted:

I always enjoyed the "HOLY SMOKES HE'S A TOON" line from Who Framed Roger rabbit.
The line is pretty plain on its own but Valiants delivery of making it sound horrific was great.

(and the stop motion flattened Judge doom always did freak me out)

Robindaybird posted:

I really don't think the movie would've done as well if it was anyone else playing Eddie Valiant

LORD OF BOOTY posted:

Or just... tell another story with the same general idea, and carry over a few characters from the first to keep it connected? WFRR's premise, of cartoons being "another Hollywood" living beneath the surface of live human Hollywood, is pretty ripe for exploration.

Macaluso posted:

Unrelated but goddamn is the cannonball scene at the end of Kung Fu Panda 2 loving awesome

K. Waste posted:

Have a plucky sci-fi short from last year called ADAM: Chapter 1. Interestingly, Neill Blomkamp directed a sequel to it this year as part of Oats Studios, so I'm looking forward to that as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXI0l3yqBrA

K. Waste posted:

Hot-take: Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence is better than the first by a pretty wide margin. I like the first, don't get me wrong, but it's got nothing on this bizarro-noir hellscape.

The MSJ posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd2W3YLFzfc

starkebn posted:

I absolutely love the first GitS and can't even understand what the gently caress is supposed to be going on in the second and think it's pretty garbage.

The aesthetic of the old timey cars is pretty cool though

K. Waste posted:

See, you've actually misread Major's relationship with Batou. They are not friends, Batou worships Major as a guardian angel. In mythological terms, Major is associated with the master who inscribes "truth" or "death" onto the forehead/into the mind of the golem. Batou is a tragic Frankenstein monster who at once acknowledges that the child-sex robots are innocent victims, but treats them with the same extreme prejudice as he treats the yakuza and, more directly, the old man in the supermarket. He pays lip service to their deaths, but when he teams up with Major to fight them, this is presented as a straightforward and perverse power fantasy.

What the film is 'saying,' in as much as it says anything, is that Section 9 are the bad guys.

Shadow Hog posted:

Double post, but about a different film, cuz I'm going back to Zootopia again.

Is there a good rebuttal against the criticism about the whole predator/prey dynamic that the film is centered around having rather unfortunate implications? Like, the criticism is specifically that there's some level of truth to the matter of predators eating prey; not in the present time, of course, that much is made explicit, but it's also explicitly stated to have definitely happened an untold number of years ago. Therefore, the film's ambitions to tackle the subject of various prejudices in human society (albeit not any specific ones) is thoroughly undermined, since the film is also stating that those prejudices had basis in truth at some point long ago, which is sort of the exact opposite thing you want to do with a subject like that, as it just justifies the bigots holding those prejudices.

Best counterarguments I can make sort of sidestep the issue without really debunking it. Pointing out that it's hardly the only prejudice in the film, such as Judy encountering "small people can't do big people jobs" or Nick encountering "all foxes are untrustworthy sleazes, full-stop", doesn't really address the accusation at all (because the predator/prey angle is still a pretty heavy focus right from the opening scene). Pointing out that the film does go out of its way to state that things have long since changed just ignores that it also states it had basis in truth in the first place (again, right in the opening scene), which is the entire crux of the argument. Pointing out the film was a lot worse about it in the shock-collar script doesn't really help matters either. I can't shake the feeling that it is, bluntly, a true criticism, and that the core allegory really is flawed in that way.

I'm still not that bothered by it myself (though as a white cisgendered heterosexual male, I'd be unaffected by most prejudices in American society applicable to the allegory anyway), but a friend of mine absolutely hates the film for this, and I don't know that I can convince him to overlook it.

Macaluso posted:

LORD OF BOOTY posted:

i liked wreck it ralph

the trailer for 2 might be one of the actual worst things i've ever seen and i think i'm going to picket this loving movie